Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizzy

Mizzy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. The article lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and is based on a flurry of coverage in the news cycle; almost all of it WP:TABLOID type sensational press. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Additionally, the article has been heavily edited by either the subject or those connected to the subject and WP:COI editing to the article and the use of the page promote the subject is concerning. (see article edit history) 4meter4 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (as article creator). Page does seem to be a magnet for both WP:IDONTLIKE and COI edits, but neither are a reason to delete (hints of WP:ATD). The significant coverage in reliable sources is clear and the subject passes WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search would indicate significant coverage in BBC News as recently as yesterday, so I disagree there is a "flurry" of coverage, coverage is very much ongoing. I watch the article carefully and have removed any tabloid stuff (there is plenty). Notability is establised by non tabloid press such as BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator and more, that high quality sourcing is already in the article.

Considering WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy and has four reasons to delete. 1 - original reporting. Nope, this is all sourced. 2 Routine coverage, also nope, the subject making headlines, the coverage is not routine, as per our definition. 3 - Who's Who which excludes people for one event and such like, this guy is notable for lots of events, 4 - Gossip and diary stuff, there is high quality reporting and analysis about the subject. Any careful reading of the policy would not support deletion.

WP:BLP1E is absolutely not met. All three criteria would need to be met, and I doubt any are. Aside from the fact that the subject is notable for multiple (similar, but that doesn't matter) events, he is absolutely not a low profile individual, thus failing criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. (See WP:NOTBLP1E for more)

None of this matters less than the key thing: WP:GNG - which is met. Thinking of WP:THREE here's three sources that should make that utterly clear:

Of course, none of these paint the guy in a good light, but that's besides the point. He is exceptionally notable. With BBC coverage as recent as yesterday, we should not WP:RUSHDELETE CT55555(talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Entertainment, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CT55555(talk) 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Also posted notification here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture CT55555(talk) 18:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is largely a negative portrayal of him, for doing "things" and getting in trouble with the law over these "things" he did. I wouldn't say that satisfied BLPCRIME, rest of his career seems not notable. It comes down to "guy does stupid stuff online and gets arrested, banned from social media". Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family life is a small section, then the next section, then a looooong list of stuff he did and got arrested for. Being stupid online doesn't really make him notable. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual or as an attack page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Oaktree has mentioned that the page is largely a negative portrayal of him, edit history shows this page as being in a constant edit war, including from Mizzy himself along with several sockpuppet accounts of his friends, constantly trying to add pages for his friends and even add advertisements for Mizzy's spotify and t-shirt websites. Mizzy is clearly aware of the negative image he has online, but is using this wikipedia article solely as a purpose to gain further online presence. In reality, he is not notable. Tiktok users such as Pinkydoll are much more notable online, and even their pages are being discussed for deletion. Having random articles about your arrest don't make you notable. Matan Even, the "Bill Clinton" game awards crasher, has several articles written about him, including several from this week alone, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either. Don't let Mizzy just get away with using wikipedia for free ads. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— User:2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep No shortage of articles regarding this internet personality - from The Guardian to The Independent to the BBC to, yes, The Daily Mail. Current delete votes seem to be factoring in quality of the page (or the individual the article is on) rather than determining notability. As in, simply because a youtuber is famous for "doing things and getting arrested", that does not discount valid coverage of them. Essentially, we can not use personal judgements regarding if coverage is about 'important stuff' or not (certainly many academic fields lack in practical importance, but there's no shortage of articles regarding fairly minor mathematicians and philosophers). The page is undoubtedly a bit of a mess, but that is also not grounds for deletion in any way. Page should likely be trimmed and potentially protected in order to prevent further abuse by both fans and opponents of this youtuber. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A MINOTAUR You have not addressed the policy issues raised in the nomination which are WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. It is not enough to show significant coverage of a BLP when that coverage falls within the same limited time frame and covers the same singular topic. Lasting notability is demonstrated by the subject being known for more than one notable event, and having coverage across time. Having many sources covering the same single topic in a one month time frame does not show sustained coverage and runs afoul of three policies named above. The sourcing is not sufficient to pass our notability policies in relation to WP:Biographies of Living People which are more stringent that GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above the BBC News coverage yesterday. Please also note coverage in Ireland last week and in Wales, yesterday

I find the suggestion that coverage all happened in one month, and that it was all related to one event, odd. Coverage is ongoing, spans many months and several events. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either 1E applies here but primary and routine coverage are explicitly excluded from establishing notability, regardless of whether they're independent or reliable. All of the coverage you've linked to far is both.. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please say more about how you think Jason Okundaye's analysis in The Guardian, the BBC News reporting and the piece in The Independent are primary sources and routine?

WP:ROUTINE is defined as such things as announcements...Planned coverage of scheduled events...Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions...sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.

I ask, because I feel confident you are mistaken on both counts. CT55555(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no analysis at all, so I can't say anything about the analysis. As for routineness, click the wikilink that says "Per Wikipedia policy". The relevant part is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion. PST of OS links to the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which has the section "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though reading that bit again, it does seem to cover crime logs as well, cf also WP:CRIME and the nearby section, WP:NCRIME. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know what the various acronyms you are using mean ("PST", "OS", "cf") so that is somewhat hindering my ability to understand you here.

I think most people understand crime logs to be daily reports from police stations or or police forces with basic details of crimes. I think they are list or database entries with brief details. This is significantly and materially different from in depth reporting about single examples of alleged criminality in reliable and independent sources.

WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that argues that breaking news should be considered "primary" and notes "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." I don't consider this essay to be aligned with common consensus at AFD discussions where independent sources like BBC News, The Guardian etc tend to be viewed as optimal sources. Nonetheless, it seems like a moot point when even the essay does't argue against using such sources. Even still, The Guardian piece is not a breaking news story, but a piece of analysis. If we were to discount most news sources on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would be a radically different from how it actually is.

WP:CRIME directs us away from creating articles about people accused of crimes if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There isn't. If anyone thinks any aspect of WP:CRIME is not met by the article, I think that they should improve the article, not argue to delete it, and I think that is supported by policy: WP:ATD. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm just kind of having a difficult time discerning how your argument fits into the policy links. This is not like local news or a tabloid, these are large articles from major websites discussing the individual, their backstory, and their cultural impact. To ask for verifiable articles suggesting notability, be confronted with three very solid articles from @CT55555, along with articles regarding the individual over the course of a year - and then say "Well, not those.".... I'm just not quite sure what would satisfy your criteria or why the bar would be set so high for this article in particular. These sources alone confer more verifiable notability than, I'm going to say conservatively, 90% of biographical pages on Wikipedia. I'm not even sure what the "singular topic" being covered here is, as there's a laundry list of items in this page. The break in? The Piers Morgan interview? "His content" as a whole?

I don't want to come off as harsh, but I'm having a hard time understanding the general 'pitch' of this AfD. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A MINOTAUR Please see Beccaynr's comment below this. She did a better job at highlighting the relevant BLP policies than my initial nomination, and it expresses the concerns more concretely than what I was able to achieve. There is a certain threshold for when BLPs involving criminal activity become encyclopedic, and this hasn't reached that point. The coverage is entirely sensational and essentially WP:TABLOID press; even if found in normally reputable sources. This is a routine news cycle for sensational stories of this kind as not enough time has passed to indicate notability. We would need to see SUSTAINED covered (i.e a year or longer) that is not superficial (and these are) with neutral reporting (which these are not) that isn't sensational and designed to be click bait. When normally reputable media start publishing and behaving like disreputable media that is exactly when we need to crack the whip and enforce our BLP policy language and use good editorial judgement. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm sorry my friend, but saying that coverage from legitimate sources, with legitimate subject matters that explore the subject in depth like The Guardian's "The disturbing rise of Mizzy: this is what happens when culture values nothing but attention" - as well as a smattering of other sources, are not something I am willing to write off or even consider for a moment as "essentially Tabloid press... even if found in normally reputable sources". I'm not really sure how I would come to that. The shoe simply doesn't fit. This is not celebrity gossip, there is no gossip occurring here. Setting arbitrary boundaries that happen to be right outside what the individual of this article possesses come off asinine and just kind of like trying to do acrobatics in order to justify the AfD rather than it being abundantly clear deletion is warrented ("Oh well sure coverage lasts for about a year... but I'd like to see it last for a year or longer..." "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but... what if they were more reputable? I'm not actually going to count a few of them this time. Could we get 6 or 7?"). I'm poking some fun at you here which I hope you don't mind, but you can see my point. Beccanyr's main concerns seems to be that this article is some hit piece on the subject - but that doesn't come across to me and overwhelmingly the page and citations within it are just providing raw facts about the individual who in this case is primarily known for notoriety gaining acts. In summary, once we start to say "Oh the BBC is a source.. until I don't like it, in which case it's a sensationalist tabloid" we might as well bin the website. Again, I apologize for any harshness but I have yet to see what I consider a solid argument for deletion and remain rather immutable here. Cheers either way. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reasons for deletion according to deletion policy appear to include a breach of the biographies of living persons policy and WP:NOT policy. The notability guideline has two prongs, such that an article can be asserted to be presumptively notable according to GNG but still excluded according to the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article began [1] on 26 May 2023 with a collection of opinion sources and news reports about allegations, but making apparent factual assertions of what can be commonly understood as criminal activity. Based on a recent source cited in this discussion (BBC), this subject is 18 years old, and the brief BBC report outlines a series of allegations. The current article [2] continues to state the subject has engaged in "illegal activities such as trespassing", and appears to source at least some of this to a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source [3]. The recent Irish Times interview-based coverage reviews what I think can be understood in Wikipedia policy terms as 'sensationalism' surrounding the subject, which is separate from simply being published in tabloid press - the WP:SENSATIONAL section in the event guideline appears to recognize that even reputable press can sensationalize subjects, and as an encyclopedia, we can strive to do better. From my view, beyond the WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE concerns based on the available coverage that appears to irreparably slant this article to negative coverage of allegations of criminal conduct and sensationalism, this article also seems contrary to the WP:NOTSCANDAL section of WP:NOT - this policy section includes, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person," and it does not seem possible to develop a neutral and balanced article based on reliable sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]